Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526588›Full record

ReviewAlcohol, clinical & experimental research2023

Do brief motivational interventions increase motivation for change in drinking among college students? A two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Zhengqi Tan, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Scott T Walters, Lin Tan, David Huh, Zhengyang Zhou, Justin M Luningham, Mary E Larimer, Eun-Young Mun

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Daily-level associations between protective behavioral strategies, transdermal alcohol concentration, and alcohol-induced blackouts among young adults.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zhengqi TanSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2297-2770
Emily E Tanner-SmithDepartment of Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-0664
Scott T WaltersSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-6141
Lin TanSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9384-264X
David HuhSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6357-4883
Zhengyang ZhouSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8039-418X
Justin M LuninghamSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5037-9149
Mary E LarimerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2003-2312
Eun-Young MunSchool of Public Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-615X
University of North Texas · USUniversity of Washington · USUniversity of Oregon · US

Funding

University of Washington Developmental AIDS Research Center for Mental Health (UW ARCH)P30MH123248 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SIMONI, JANE M. · 2021 to 2024
$5.8M
Innovative Analyses of Alcohol Intervention Trials for College StudentsR01AA019511 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR · PI MUN, EUN-YOUNG · 2010 to 2021
$4.6M
Optimizing Brief Alcohol Interventions for Young Adults via Computational MethodsK02AA028630 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR · PI MUN, EUN-YOUNG · 2021 to 2025
$668k
NIAAA NIH HHS K02 AA028630NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA019511NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH123248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief motivational interventions (BMIs) are one of the most effective individually focused alcohol intervention strategies for college students. Despite the central theoretical role of motivation for change in BMIs, it is unclear whether BMIs increase motivation to change drinking behavior. We conducted a two-step meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) to examine whether BMIs increase motivation for change. N = 5903;59% women, 72% White) from Project INTEGRATE. The BMIs included individually delivered motivational interviewing with personalized feedback (MI + PF), stand-alone personalized feedback (PF), and group-based motivational interviewing (GMI).

methodsWe included 15 trials of BMI (N = 5903;59% women, 72% White) from Project INTEGRATE. The BMIs included individually-delivered motivational interviewing with personalized feedback (MI + PF), stand-alone personalized feedback (PF), and group-based motivational interviewing (GMI). Different measures and responses used in the original trials were harmonized. Effect size estimates were derived from a model that adjusted for baseline motivation and demographic variables for each trial (step 1) and subsequently combined in a random-effects meta-analysis (step 2).

resultsThe overall intervention effect of BMIs on motivation for change was not statistically significant (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.026, 95% CI: [-0.001, 0.053], p = 0.06, k = 19 comparisons). Of the three subtypes of BMIs, GMI, which tended to provide motivation-targeted content, had a statistically significant intervention effect on motivation, compared with controls (SMD: 0.055, 95% CI: [0.007, 0.103], p = 0.025, k = 5). By contrast, there was no evidence that MI + PF (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: [-0.02, 0.10], k = 6, p = 0.20) nor PF increased motivation (SMD = 0.005, 95% CI: [-0.028, 0.039], k = 8, p = 0.75), compared with controls. Post hoc meta-regression analysis suggested that motivation sharply decreased each month within the first 3 months postintervention (b = -0.050, z = -2.80, p = 0.005 for k = 14).

conclusionsAlthough BMIs provide motivational content and normative feedback and are assumed to motivate behavior change, the results do not wholly support the hypothesis that BMIs improve motivation for change. Changing motivation is difficult to assess during and following interventions, but it is still a theoretically important clinical endpoint. Further, the evidence cautiously suggests that changing motivation may be achievable, especially if motivation-targeted content components are provided.

Indexed as

brief motivational interventionsindividual participant datameta-analysismotivation for changeProject INTEGRATE

Identifiers

PMID37526588
PMCPMC10692312
OpenAlexW4379209017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.